


• **'** • 







■r O 












^'?- 



5°^. 



^o 













lO-?-- 



^--^^^ 



O^ * • , o » . '^ 






















^ ^ 

•^ 



** ** 



&' y& 




kK />'}^i^y y«-^9;-\ *^<';^'"' 






.0 "%. '-'^fO^^s'' ^ 















• . o - AV '<^. ♦ . , i • ^^ o^ - ■ - 



« t • o^, "^> «> 




5^ ^, 









• ao 











%.^" 






0^ ^i5. 




^'\ 






REVIEW 



OP THE 



REMARKS 



ON 



DR. CHANNING'S SLAVERY, 



BY A CITIZEN OF MASSACHUSETTS. 



.inuxH-iuU- f 



^ 



BOSTON: 

JAMES MUNROE AND COMPANY. 

1836. 



Entered according to act of Congress, in the year 1836, by James Monroe &. Co., 
in the Clerk's office of the District Court of the District of Massachusetts. 



Cambridge Press : 
Metcalf, Terry, & Ballou. 



SLAVERY. 



C J 



The "Remarks on Dr. Channing's Slavery " are written in 
strong though not acurate language, with liveliness of illustra- 
tion and general attractiveness of style. The subject is an 
all-interesting one : the book remarked upon is from a great 
and popular author. The Remarks are therefore read by 
many. 

This writing is a dangerous one; tending, if we mistake 
not, to do the community much harm. 

It is so, first, because it is written in a spirit of skepticism 
with regard to moral means of influence. It treats the ex- 
pectation of change to be wrought by appeals to men's 
consciences, to their sense of the right, to their love of the 
beautiful, of the pure, of the honest, as visionary and childish. 
We are taught to believe that no projects are practical, but 
those that appeal directly to interest, to selfishness, — 
that virtue in the abstract is well enough to talk about, to 
form a subject of sermons and poems, of the day-dreams of 
enthusiasts and the discussions of ministers, but that it has 
little to do with the actual, prosaic affairs of life. 

Now moral means of influence are not vain. They are real. 
They are powerful. They have wrought great changes ; they 
will work greater. They are, they always have been, they 
must necessarily be, of great efficacy in the history of the 
world. What revolutions in the opinions, the tastes, the habits 
of nations have been brought about by the writings of single 
men ! How has the face of society been changed by the 
unseen, silent, sure influence of principles of religion, of philoso- 
phy, of politics, infused into the public mind by gifted writers and 
speakers ! Our people's opinions are formed by what they read 



and hear. The views they take of things, and thence their 
dispositions to act, are changed, MMlhout the operation of law, 
without alteration of the circumstances upon which their 
interests depend. The book that is made the family compan- 
ion in the evening sends forth its members in the morning 
with minds imbued more or less with its spirit. It determines 
therefore in some measure the tone of society, and the actions 
of those who compose that society. How can it be otherwise ? 
It is matter of every day occurrence, that an individual's view 
of an important subject is materially changed by the writings 
or conversations of an able man. Indeed no one is so firm, so 
strongly prejudiced, so firmly intrenched behind error, as to be 
proof against these influences, Of the thousands who have 
read Dr. Channing's book, for instance, many have been per- 
suaded of truths new to them, or warmed to a fuller recognition 
of those which before they speculatively admitted; all probably 
have been more or less affected. Each one of us feels that 
the operation of such minds upon him is real, strong, effica- 
cious. He sees that it is the same with his neighbour. How 
then is it possible that such influences can be other than pow- 
erful upon a community of men like ourselves, having hearts, 
consciences, understandings, not indeed sound, but retaining in 
every instance some of the natural susceptibilities. No : moral 
influences are not weak; and it is no dream to expect great, 
though gradual, changes in the opinions, feelings, desires, of 
our countrymen, wrought by the writings of our great men, 
and by the conversations and moral action of the good. 
These it is that mould society. These it is that inspire into 
the busy mass new sentiments, new aspirations, and thereby 
in the end reform institutions, and make laws. It is because 
these are efficacious, that every man is bound to use his part 
of therii well, to make every word, which he writes or speaks 
on the great questions by which the country is divided, help 
the right side. 

We object then to the spirit of the Remarks, that it under- 
values these moral means. It thereby loosens our obligations 
to think and speak and read and publish aright. If moral 
influences are unreal, then to use them well ceases to be a 
duty to the country. Convince men of this, and our strength 



is sapped, — our foundations are fearfully shaken, — our con- 
fidence, our hope is gone, and society, deserted by its guides, 
will lose its way. 

We object further to the spirit of the Remarks, that it is a 
wrangling spirit. The writer, as we shall see upon examination 
of his pages, fights for victory, not for the truth. By this he 
does great mischief The question of Slavery demands all the 
coolness, all the elevation of mind and integrity of purpose 
which can be brought to it. It is at best a fearful, a dark 
question. The mind groans under it and is borne down. We 
are already too much harassed by the difficulties which beset 
us, too much posed by the magnitude of the evils threatened, 
too near being incapacitated for exertion at beholding the 
immensity of our task, the liveliness of the opposition, and the 
moral apathy of men. Perplex us not by ingenious sophistry. 
Let the spirit of contention prevail in the discussions of this 
subject, and we are lost: lost to the integrity of purpose which 
alone will merit, to the calmness of judgment which alone 
will ensure, success. No greater injury can be done to the 
community, than by encouraging them to make the subject of 
Slavery one of the many, upon which spleen is vented, men 
abused, vanity gratified, and truth neglected. 

The tendency of the Remarks is harmful, again, in that 
they represent virtue, pure regard for right, unadulterated by 
views of immediate interest, as something speculative, unreal, 
something meant for the closet, not for business life. True it 
is, that among the mass of men, absorbed as they are in petty 
pursuits, the right, the good, is but little regarded as the one, 
the all-important end of existence. Rare enough are the 
examples of manly rectitude, of supreme regard to higher and 
better things than what we see and hear around us. The very 
good man rises an anomaly among his fellows, and is called a 
dreamer, a theorist. Yet none the less ought right to be the 
great standard of all actions, domestic and social : none the 
less for the boisterous voices and menacing brows of interested 
men, are the plans of virtue the most practical, though the 
least practised of all. Men are too apt to excuse themselves 
for grovelling views, by treating whatever life is [jurer and more 
elevated than their own, as speculation ; and whoever helps 



men thus to blind themselves to what should be their shining 
light, does a great injury, a great wrong. 

And lastly we object to these Remarks, that they represent 
man as made for the law, and not the law for man. This is 
the error of the profession to which the writer belongs. The 
clergy regard man as made for the church, and judge of all 
measures according as they bear upon the forms of religion. 
Gentlemen of the bar regard man as made for the law, and 
judge of all measures, according to their bearing upon what 
they call civil society. Sentimental morality, they tell us, 
abstract reasoning upon the rights of human nature, enthusi- 
astic appeals to imaginary motives, are good enough for theo- 
logians, but they have no practical bearing upon civil society. 
What do you mean by civil society ? Moral reasonings have 
an effect upon individuals ; and is not the community made 
up of individuals ? The eloquence of good men does not, it 
is true, enact and abrogate laws ; it does not work sudden chan- 
ges, in manners or morals or establishments. But does it there- 
fore produce no useful result? Civil institutions are but the 
garments, which society wears to protect itself from ihe warring 
of harsh elements. They are useful, they are right, only so 
far as they help men forward in physical and spiritual progress. 
They must be accommodated to individual wants; for for 
individuals they are devised. The great question then, with 
regard to the policy of a public discussion, is, not merely how 
it is to affect civil society, so called, but how it bears upon 
men, as such, upon individuals, whether directly or indirectly. 

A professedly unprincipled author finds little welcome in 
New England. One who, at the same time that he advocates 
bad principles, shows them in all their ugliness, is compara- 
tively an innoxious man. But he who, with apparent sense 
of duty and regard for the public weal, wags his head at the 
virtuous and sneers at well-laid plans of philanthropy, is, in 
our matter-of-fact times, of all citizens the most dangerous. 
That he is not emphatically a bad man is a misfortune. For 
vice unhelped by virtue falls dead upon society, whereas a 
mixture of principle makes a large mass of bad words 
acceptable. 



It is because the pamphlet under consideration is of this 
baneful tendency, that we propose to review it ; to examine 
the positions the writer assumes, and to assign the due weight 
to the considerations he brings forward. We shall not aim to 
bring him discomfort by exposing the literary and philosophi- 
cal faults, of which he is guilty ; our concern is with the book, 
not with the man ; and with the book only so far as it has to 
do with certain great subjects. 

We pass over the two first pages, as containing nothing 
requiring remark, and come to the propositions which the 
writer lays down as the several subjects of the subsequent 
chapters. 

"First. Public sentiment in the free States, in relation to Slavery, is perfectly 
sound, and ought not to be altered. 

" Second. Public sentiment in the Slave-holding States, whether right or not, 
cannot be altered. 

" Third. An attempt to produce any alteration in the public sentiment of the 
country will cause gieat additional evil — moral, social, and political." 

We deny them all. Not only are these propositions not 
true, they bear the mark of falsehood on their very face. 
They are to be rejected a priori. That public sentiment is 
perfectly sound, and ought not to be altered, cannot be said 
of any country or of any time. That observer must have but 
a low standard of right, his ideal can have but little beauty 
and truth, who does not see everywhere lamentable deficiencies 
in the prevailing tone of society. Such a dominion do inter- 
est, passion, selfishness maintain in the world, that they make 
large encroachments upon honor, purity, and truth among 
every people. Public sentiment is more or less defective at 
its very root, all the world over. It is radically defective. It 
draws its life from wrong principles, from more or less base 
motives, from passions too much indulged. The reign of 
right is yet very far from being established. Much is to be 
done, much is to be suffered, much, much is to be contended 
for, before any honest man will be content with the opinions, 
which he observes men habitually maintaining, and hears 
them habitually express. And if this be true ; nay, even if 
never so small a part of this be true, how false upon its very 
face is the proposition, that public sentiment is perfectly 
sound, either here or elsewhere. 



8 

To pass to the second proposition. That " Public senti- 
ment cannot be altered," is not true of any country or any 
time. Public sentiment is always changing. It is character- 
ized by fluctuation. Next year it may be very different from 
what it now is. It is Protean. The fickleness of the people's 
favor is a proverb. It is true, certain great principles often 
obtain in a natio'i, and for a long period give it a peculiar 
character. A spirit of liberty breathes through one people ; 
a spirit of submission through another. A love of gain char- 
acterizes the subjects of that state ; sentiment, and interest 
in the fine arts those of another ; and an attachment to slavery, 
united with unusual irritability and haughtiness of temper, 
may be the deep-rooted peculiarity of yet a third class of men. 
But how has popular character changed under the influences 
of religion, philosophy, and enlightened views of interest ! 
How often have we seen a people madly eager to destroy an 
institution, which a few years before they clung to with rever- 
ence ! All things pass away, save truth. Ignorance, super- 
stition, despotism, persecution, are gone or are going with the 
causes which produced and maintained them ; and the attach- 
ment to, or tolerance of, slavery must pass away, now that 
the barbarous influences, from which it sprung, have failed. 
The awakened sympathies of men, the stern rebukes of up- 
right truth, are pressing upon it and driving it to a closer refuge. 
Its circle is daily narrowing, and it will soon disappear like 
unsupplied waters under the beams of the summer sun. Rad- 
ical changes in public feeling must necessarily be slow. But 
by wise and good means they are none the less sure to be 
wrought. However difiicult, they are yet, to say the least, 
possible. The unqualified assertion, that public sentiment in 
the Slave-holding States, or in any States, cannot be altered, 
is evidently and extravagantly false. The position cannot be 
maintained for a moment, in the face of history, or of what 
we experience every day. 

The third proposition, understood according to its words, 
would bind us to entire passiveness, with regard to public opin- 
ion in all cases. It would require men of character and tal- 
ents, to refrain from attempting to influence in any way the 
public mind. It would rob the people of its leading men, of 



those whose written and spoken opinions guide it aright. Tlie 
writer means to refer to the subject of Slavery alone. And 
why are we to refrain from expressing opinions on Slavery ? 
Is public sentiment perfectly sound on this subject? In the 
discussions of it, has there been so little mixture of passion, 
have men been so free from selfishness, from hardness of heart, 
from obstinacy, from all bias, and from every mental evil, as to 
insure a perfectly healthful state of public sentiment? — If, on 
the contrary, the minds of our countrymen on this point are 
boiling with false zeal, rage, and revenge; if conversations and 
writings on this point are virulent, fierce, and menacing ; if the 
excitement is so great as to be thought to threaten the dissolu- 
tion of the union or civil war; if, moreover, a large portion of 
our country is so thoroughly doomed to this inherited curse, 
as to be induced to continue what they cannot conscientiously 
maintain, as to be kept constantly in a state of jealousy, irrita- 
bility, and unwillingness to be convinced, — how can it be that 
public sentiment, in this regard, is so faultless, that any 
attempt whatsoever to alter it, will cause, not only evil, but 
great evil, moral, social, and political? — The proposition like 
the two former is false on its very face. From the very 
circumstances of the case, it is morally impossible that it 
should be true. Erroneous feeling there must be, on the sub- 
ject of Slavery. It would be a miracle that we should be 
free from it. In so far as such is the case, in so far as public 
sentiment is wrong, it should, if possible, be changed. Here 
as elsewhere, we must seek out the true, the right. This 
can be done only by looking into the merits of the case with 
coolness, conscientious integrity, and love of truth, feeling that 
in formin?, uttering, and publishing opinions on this dark 
question, we incur a heavy responsibility. This Dr. Channing 
seems to us to have done. We cannot think so favorably of 
the author of the pamphlet we are examining. 

After laying down the three propositions upon which we 
have commented, the writer proceeds to endeavour to establish 
the first. In order to show that "public sentiment in the 
northern States is perfectly sound," he states what he believes 
that sentiment to be. 

2 



10 

" The doctrine of the Northern States is: 

" 1. That Domestic Slavery is a deep and dreadful evil. 

" 2. That its continuance or removal is solely within the power of the domestic 
legislation of the State in which it exists. 

" 3. That it is a breach of our highest political contract, and a violation of good 
faith and common honesty, to disturb the internal condition and domestic ar- 
rangements of tiie Slave-holding States. 

Now, first, this is not the pubHc sentiment of the northern 
States. Secondly, if it were, it does not go far enough. 

1. We do not fully understand what is meant by the 
" Doctrine of the Northern States." It maybe, it probably is, 
the case, that most of our leading men hold as doctrine what 
is here laid down. But we deny that such is the prevailing 
"Public Sentiment in the free States." A majority of our 
citizens think and speak of Slavery, if at all, as an evil. Yet 
how many of the majority extenuate the evil! How many 
tell us of the comfortable condition of the Slaves, in compari- 
son of the poor peasantry of Europe, of the lightness of their 
toil, of the liberality with which their wants are supplied, 
indeed, of the general happiness of their lot, — forgetting that 
the very condition of being owned by a master, is an incom- 
parably greater evil than subjection to all physical woes, to 
hunger and thirst, to poverty, torture, and death ! How few 
make it the sentiment of their hearts, that Slavery is, not only 
an evil, but a deep and dreadful evil ! Why is it that we hear 
so much lightness of remark on this imposing question ? 
Why is it that we are sometimes told that the " black rascals 
of the South " are only fit to be Slaves, and that they were 
not made for a better lot? — Is the general tone of conversa- 
tion, or even of writing, among us, such as coming from men 
under the consideration of a deep and dreadful evil ? By no 
means. Our citizens believe Slavery to be an evil. But they 
do not feel the extent of the calamity. They do not wish, 
or they dare not, or they are not able, to look into its depths. 
They do not, as they should, dread it, for itself, with solemn 
anxiety. 

2. If the public sentiment were such as the author repre- 
sents it, it is not enough. Men must not only believe Slavery a 
deep and dreadful evil ; they must feel it to be a deep and 
dreadful wrong. They must not merely be convinced of its 



11 

disadvantages ; they must be persuaded of its astounding 
barbarity. And this feeling must not only obtain ; it must 
prevail ; it must become universal, before the assertion that 
"Public sentiment is perfectly sound," can be true. 

The rest of the first chapter is given to illustrating the first 
tenet of what is called our doctrine. We are told that "it has 
been so long acknowledged and so recently repeated that it 
needs no additional enforcement." In reply to this, let it be 
asked ; do long acknowledgment and recent repetition render 
additional enforcement of an important truth unnecessary? It 
has been acknowledged ever since the time of Moses, and is 
repeated to us every Sunday in some of our churches, that to 
love our neighbour, to steal not, to oppress no one, are funda- 
mental duties of humanity ; but has it therefore become need- 
less to present these duties in new, striking, attractive points 
of view ? Is it not still a patriot's best work, to labor to make 
them admired and loved and cherished by all ? It has been 
long regarded as the duty of every man, to give his voice 
and his life to the side of truth and virtue; yet what constant 
enforcement of this truth is demanded ! When was it denied, 
that an author is under an obligation to the community to 
use what power he may have, for their good, — and in all 
discussions of duty, to take up his pen with singleness and 
candor? Yet notwithstanding any recent statements of this 
obligation there may have been, would not he be doing the 
State service, who should by enforcement of it, help put a stop 
to the miserable sophistry and wretched wit, by which our 
people are played upon, and made sadly to err, even on matters 
of the gravest, the most solemn import? — Notice the looseness 
of thought, the want of logic, the inaccuracy, the helter-skelter 
style, which are apparent in this part of the Remarks. They 
will be found to pervade the whole. 

It is asked, " what possible benefit is to be gained by repeat- 
ing in every inflection of taste and style, and with all the 
gorgeousness of rhetoric, long-established truisms which 
nobody denies." Among these is classed the truth, which 
Dr. Channing makes it his object to prove, to enforce, and to 
illustrate, namely, that " by the moral law there can be no 
property in a human being."' Tiiis. reader, is one of the long- 



12 

established truisms, which nobody denies. Yet turn to the 
eighteenth page, and we find the author himself denying it. 
We are there told that " it is true only with important qualifi- 
cations and many limitations," that " it is declared to be false 
by the universal past legislation of the world." And from the 
last paragraph of the second chapter we are left to conclude 
generally, that to hold men as property is not a violation of 
the moral law. For the writer tells us that the Supreme 
Court, with whose decision he leads us to suppose he fully co- 
incides, "would undoubtedly decide by an unanimous opinion, 
that human law can confer no right of property against the 
principles of sound morality; " and that they '' would as readily 
decide that the law of Massachusetts before the constitution 
of 1780 did make property of a slave." Hence, since, "to 
make property " is used in these pages as synonymous with 
the phrase " to confer right of property," it follows, that the 
writer believes it to be the unanimous opinion of the Supreme 
Court, and that it is his own, that by the principles of sound 
morality there may be a right of property in man. Yet the 
contrary of this is " the long-established truism," which needs 
no enforcement. 

The truth which Dr. Channing makes so radiant, though 
indeed a truism to all who know the celestial faculties and 
destinies of the soul, is by no means so to the author of the 
Remarks, nor to those Avho agree with him in opinion. Dr. 
C. attempts to show, and to make felt, that this truth is to be 
received without any qualifications or limitations whatsoever, 
that it is a fundamental, immutable law, which courts, legisla- 
tion, constitutions have no power to infringe. 

Let anyone who has thought it worth his while to read the 
Remarks, compare the difl'erent passages which have been indi- 
cated, and in their contradictions he will see evidences of a mind 
unsettled on the very fundamental point of the discussion. 
He will find something very far from that clear, consistent 
exposition of truth, which we want on the subject of Slavery. 

The questions, which are put, are easy of answer. We 
shall be excused for omitting some amplification and epithet. 
" What benefit is to be gained by repeating long-established 
truisms which nobody denies?" Answer: That not only nobody 



13 

may deny, but all may assert and heartily feel them, and 
act according to their spirit. This end is not gained by bare 
repetition, but by an eloquent exposition of thcin. " Why 
are we told that, by the moral law, there can be no property 
in a human being, when, for more than half a century, the soil 
of New England has not been pressed by tlie foot of a domestic 
slave?" Answer: That the soil of South C<u-olina may be 
alike free. " Why are we told that man, every man, however 
obscure liis condition, is a rational, iDoral, and immortal being, 
&c. ? " Answer: That men, taught to prize their couunon 
natm'e more, may defend it with greater constancy from 
degradation in their fellows. " Why are we told in detail of 
the vast evils of Slavery, vfec. ? " Answer : That feeling them 
more strongly, we may, with solemn anxiety, set about re- 
moving their cause ; or if that be impossible, strive to guard 
ourselves against the effects. " Addressed to us," says the 
pamphlet, " such glowing and exciting language is useless for 
conviction." Even allowing this ; it must be remembered that 
people are not only to be convinced ; they are to be persuaded. 
They must not merely acknowledge, they must feel. 

In the next paragraph it is said that the South, as well as 
the North, maintains that man cannot be held as property; that 
a great part of " the best informed and well principled peo- 
ple " there "feel deeply and powerfully " "the moral, social, 
and political degradation that Slavery brings with it ; " "the 
sin, misery and wretchedness in which, with retributive jus- 
tice, it involves all classes of the community in which it is 
foimd." This needs no comment. Every reader perceives, 
without help, the extravagance of this statement. Such er- 
rors show either great incapacity, or culpable carelessness, in 
the writer. 

It is not unfrequently said, that Dr. Channing harps upon 
truisms. This peculiarity, far from being a fault, is the great 
merit, the boast, of his writings. He founds his philoso- 
phy, his morality, his religion, his eloquence, upon no debata- 
ble ground. He establishes himself upon first principles, 
which find confirmation in the heart of every reader. 



14 

All true philosophy, all good argument, all sound logic is 
foimdcd upon Irnisms. Every train of reasoning, which can- 
not be reduced to a self-evident proposition, is false. Of every 
triitli, of a ch )ract(;r to permit qneslioniug, we may ask the rea- 
son ; and in like n)annor we may ask the reason of this reason, 
and soon, demanding the why at every proposition, until finally 
we arrive at one which can be made no simpler, which needs 
no proof, which is its own reason. Such trnths, and such as 
are, by the agreement of all the world, necessary deductions 
from them, form the basis of reasoning, and are called' truisms. 
The more distinct and complete the chain of connexion be- 
tween any thing maintained and these fundamental truths, the 
more convincing is the proof. The shorter this chain, the less 
the chance of error. 

Among these truths, so simple, so evident, as either to need 
no proof, or to find their proof in every heart, are some of the 
greatest, the most fruitful of instruction, upon which our re- 
flections can be engaged. Our obligations to God and man, 
our main rights, such as those of freedom and self-defence, are 
not mervrly evident to accomplished casuists, but are, in their 
main features, known instinctively by every mind. They 
need no ingenious reasoning. They are not to be sought in 
the dark. They blaze every where and form the light of life. 
The great laws of external nature are to be understood by 
those, only, who have skill and means to observe, and science 
to interpret what they observe. The astronomer must have 
his telescope and know how to direct it: he looks far into dis- 
tant systems, with which he has nought to do but as a philos- 
opher, and by patient observation, and long and difficult cal- 
culation, comes at a partial knowledge of the laws which they 
obey. The moral world, on the contrary, is not distant ; it is 
all within us. Its great laws, the laws of duty, are not hard 
to be discovered ; but since they are to bind all men, the igno- 
rant as well as the instructed, the barbarous alike with the ed- 
ucated, the clown and the philosopher, they are plain, evident 
without search, to all. All that ingenuity and learning add to 
moral science is trifling, compared with that which is known 
by every boor, which the peasant reads in the oak leaf, and 



-15 

hears preached by the bird. The great truths of our common 
nature find confirmation in every breast. They are truism.s. 

Metaphysicians and moralists have lost sight of this. In- 
volved in learned mysteries, they have forgotten, or have never 
learned, that their subject, their witness, their judge, is every 
hnmati mind ; and in perusing their pages, we recognise any 
thing rather than a faithful delineation of what we feel within 
us. Their principles find no echo in our hearts. Their dis- 
cussions are not animated and verified by that quick and pro- 
found philosophy, common sense. They do not appeal to 
universal man. 

Moral truth is simple. Proposed nakedly to the mind, it is 
immediately received. It needs no confirmation from abroad. 
We see in it nothing novel, nothing strange. It appears as 
something not to be questioned, as something which every 
body admits. 

What greater praise then can be given to a moral philosopher, 
than that he is simple, that he writes what every body admits, 
that he does not seek to surprise by paradox or by the subtil ty 
of his logic, but that he speaks the great principles of human 
philosophy with such truth and power, that they harmonize 
with our feelings, and we recognise them, not as another's 
conclusions, but as our own ? 

If Dr. Channing merely repeats what every body knew before; 
if he adds no force to the moral truisms which he utters ; if 
he supports them with no richness of illustration, and brightens 
them with no new ray of sanctified fancy; if he states them 
with no beauty of expression, with no copious flow of lan- 
guage ; if they gather no grace, no power, no evidence, no life, 
no beauty, by passing through his page — then he is justly to be 
condemned for profitless repetitions. But if, on the contrary, 
familiar and neglected truths are made by him to rouse the 
attention, if dull common place becomes under his influences 
movingly eloquent, if those principles which every body 
recognises, and every body is repeating from day to day and 
from hour to hour, come from his pen, endued with new life, 
filled with new energy, wrapped around with glorious images, 
applied to new and important relations, — in short, regenerate, 
from a mind able fully to feel and strongly to express them, — 



16 

then he is to be praised that he has turned his great powers, 
not to the support of paradox or debatable truth, but to the 
illustration and enforcement of the great truisms of humanit7. 

Any attempt, say the Remarks, to bring the community to 
a stronger sense of the evils of Slavery, will only excite pas- 
sion and foster ill-will ; for there is no remedy, nothing pro- 
posed to be done. It cannot be said that nothing is proposed 
to be done, when men continue, not only proposing, but acting. 
In fact that very course is proposed, the pursuit of which is said 
by our author to be productive only of evil. It is proposed 
that our whole people should be made to feel on this momentous 
subject aright. Here is something very practical and worthy of 
our best endeavour. Every good man, every patriot, and every 
one who has an enlightened care for the welfare of himself and 
family, will engage in this work, not indeed with the ex- 
pectation that it will be immediately effected, but with the 
hope that public opinion will be daily growing in some degree 
more correct, and with a thorough conviction, on the part of 
each, that he, as an individual member, and by his connexions, 
has some power, more or less, upon the judgments of the com- 
munity, and that he is under a solemn responsibility to use this 
power well. Now, to pause here, — even if this were all, if 
nothing more were proposed, than to correct, purify, and 
strengthen public sentiment in this regard, the proposition 
would be definite, practical, and important. Each man has 
herein a duty laid before him, from which he cannot turn 
away. As a citizen, his opinions, feelings, expressions are one 
element in the great aggregate, which is so powerful in its 
operation. He is bound then, from this consideration, to 
think, speak, and act justly. Once let our people be persuaded 
of the magnitude of the evils of Slavery, of the bitterness of the 
wrong done to the Slave by retaining him in his bonds, once 
let Slavery be generally regarded in its true light, and relief 
from this "entailed curse" would be easy and prompt. Our 
nation would no longer permit this blot upon its character to 
remain ; it would suffer humanity no more to be outraged under 
its sanction. 



17 

But more is proposed. The author of the Remarks strangely 
forgets, or puts out of view, Dr. Channing's Chapter on the 
"Means of removing Slavery," and alludes to it here only for 
the purpose of satirical embellishment. He is guilty of a 
misstatement, we will presnme a careless one, which tends to 
blind the reader to the true view of the subject. That nothing 
is proposed, is not true, in any sense. Not only is it recom- 
mended and urged, in general, that each man should use his 
own judgment with soberness, but particular courses of con- 
duct are counselled to the Slave-holders. Nor are the means 
suggested for doing justice to the Slave, or meliorating his lot, 
so void of " practical efficiency," as to deserve to be passed over 
so lightly. It is proposed that the labor of the slaves should 
be exchanged for labor of a freer and more animating kind, 
— that their rewards should be made to depend upon their own 
exertions, — that their families should be more under their care 
and protection, — and that buying and selling them should be 
prohibited by legislative enactment. Here are practical, defi- 
nite proposals, which are, to say the least, not absurd. The 
discussion is not where the author of the Remarks would 
place it. The question is not a merely speculative one. It is 
of vital and immediate interest to our people. It bears on 
them, most practically. Tlieir political existence perhaps 
depends upon the right decision of it. And we trust that few, 
under the infliction of such a scourge, will sit down with the 
pusillanimous exclamation : Leave the Slaves' rights to the 
ministers ; there is nothing to be done. 

And even if what the author here maintains were true, if 
nothing had been proposed, or to use the words of the pam- 
phlet, which we do not fully understand, "If no human secu- 
rity had been suggested of the least practical efficiency," yet 
the author's point would by no means be made out, that an 
attempt to bring our people to a deeper sense of the evils of 
Slavery can be productive only of evil. 

" If there is no known remedy, why instruct a man of his 
condition?" In order that he may find one. This is our 
answer, simple and decisive, though very different from that 
which the author leaves us to infer. Indeed it is a peculiarity 
of this pamphlet, that propositions are advanced as evidently 
3 



18 

true, which are, on the coulrary, evidently false, and that ques- 
tions are put, apparently intended by the writer to be answered 
unhesitatingly in one way, which every intelligent reader must 
unhesitatingly answer in the other. "A practical moralist," 
says the pamphlet, " is bound to find a remedy for the evils 
he enumerates, or to keep silence till he can." This, we 
submit, is a false principle. An evil must necessarily be 
known before its remedy can be discovered and applied. To 
insist, therefore, upon remaining in ignorance of an evil, until 
the remedy be known, is to render the discovery of the remedy 
impossible. It is only by examining an evil that we can learn 
to cure it. 

And finally, even making the violent supposition that there 
not only is no known remedy, but can in the nature of things 
be none, yet the writer's point is not made out. For there 
are many unavoidable evils, which ought to be known, and 
looked full in the face. Do we not warn an expiring friend 
of the approach of death, even though it be sure ? If Slavery 
is to be the eternal curse of this country, if we have the dismal 
prospect of the continuance of this national affliction to the 
remotest posterity, still let our people feel fully the awful 
magnitude of the evil, and the heinousness of the wrong, that 
even if they may not mitigate them, they may at least i:ot 
suffer their fundamental notions of policy and right to be cor- 
rupted by a wrong view of such an anomaly in the history of 
a republic, 

"The duty of Christianity,'' says the pamphlet, "is not to 
excite strong abhorrence in one portion of the community 
which may lead them to break the bounds of moderation and 
prudence, nor to excite in another angry and hateful feelings 
and stir up their resentment and revenge." No. This is true. 
Every one must assent to this. The office of Christianity, 
and the duty of a Christian (if the writer will permit us to cor- 
rect his rhetoric) is, not to excite hostility and resentment, — 
but on the contrary to foster benevolence, and to encourage 
an independent and unwavering pursuit of right on the part of 
every individual, — to infuse more and more of the spirit of 
philanthropy into all political proceedings, — to bring gover- 
nors and the governed more and more into subjection to the 



19 

moral law. It is not for the blacks alone that we must act. 
" Sympathy is due to the white man as well as to the slave." 
Here Dr. C. and his censor agree. Not so, long. Objection is 
made "to the severe and indiscriminate reflections which this 
teacher of morals " throws on our Slave-holding countrymen. 
Next comes a definition of "malicious slander;" but Dr. C's. 
work, on account of failing of one essential of this definition, 
is stated to be exculpated from coming under that category. 
Indeed the paragraph seems to have been written only for the 
purpose of introducing the illustration with which it closes, 
namely, that Dr. Channing's book is a poisoned shaft from a 
weak bow. There are other writings, of which this simile is 
more illustrative than of that to which it is applied. 

On the next page, the author caricatures in a few well- 
drawn traits the religious cant of the day, that pervading, that 
truly malignant bane of our country. We wish him and all 
his brothers of the pen God speed, in tearing the veil from 
the theological apes whose voices are all too much attend- 
ed to and obeyed by the mass of our people, and who are 
a scandal to true morality and pure religion. Perhaps ridicule 
is the only weapon with which the men of the rueful visage 
and sepulchral tone can be successfully attacked. If so, 
let all good men and true, thus armed, have at them, till 
they be silenced or swept away. But it must be remem- 
bered that ridicule is a dangerous weapon, that its strokes 
are uncertain, that in aiming at hypocrisy, we may wound 
religion. We must beware of being too severe and too 
searching, lest we shatter the foundations upon which all 
that is best and most promising in the character of our people 
rests. 

To return to the objection brought against " the indiscrimi- 
nate reflection thrown on the Slave-holders," it is to be 
answered, that Dr. Channing's censures are by no means indis- 
criminate. He takes pains to guard himself, on this point, 
and to make his reader observe that he argues only from the 
necessary tendencies of Slavery, and its general effects. He 
does not, in the words used by the author of the Remarks, 
"note down all the faults of our Southern brethren, to cast 
them in their teeth." He writes not in the manner of one 



20 

seeking to calumniate or provoke. He exposes with calmness, 
and firmness, the suffering and vice which in his judgment are 
the necessary result of Slavery, and which we all know to 
have been the actual result of it in our Southern States. The 
expression "that a slave-country reeks with licentiousness," 
is a strong one, perhaps too strong. Yet what man, at all 
acquainted with the state of society in the Southern part of 
our country, does not know that the morals of the Slave-hold- 
ing States are horribly corrupted by licentiousness. But in 
the opinion of the author, these accusations, whether true or 
false, are alike objectionable. "General accusations," he 
remarks, "are never true." This assertion, like others which 
we have before noticed, is entirely unfounded. Examine it 
by instances. — That the inferior clergy of the church of 
Rome, a century ago, were licentious, idle, and ignorant, is a 
general accusation, and is true. That the courtiers of Charles 
II. were extremely profligate, is a general accusation, and is 
true. That we are a money-getting people, and that intem- 
perance was with us a national vice, are general accusations, 
and are true : but am I therefore to be up in arms, whenever 
these last charges are brought forward, as if I individually had 
been called drunkard and penny-splitter ? " The national char- 
acter, real or imputed," say the Remarks, " is felt to attach 
to every individual, whether he himself be or be not a 
partaker of the national vice." This is indeed a strange 
declaration. Why should it be so ? Why is a charge of 
licentiousness brought against a people, felt to be made against 
an individual who has in no way contributed to give that charge 
foundation ? There is, we all know, a foolish national vanity, 
which resents whatever may be said in disparagement of one's 
country's perfections, from which our people are not free, and of 
which the Remarks, it seems, attribute to the Southern gentle- 
men no common share. But what possible foundation for a 
personal application of impersonal strictures ? Read the pas- 
sage quoted from Dr. Channing, on the ninth page of the pam- 
phlet. Is there any thing there which ought to offend the 
virtuous, the pure, the honorable of our Southern States ? The 
people of the South must be held in very low estimation by 
those who believe that " scarcely a husband or father there 



21 

can fail to consider it a personal affront." Those only will so 
consider it, to whom the charge, even if it were personal, 
would be no affront. 

The attempted exposition of the irritating tendency of Dr. 
Channing's statement of the evils of Slavery, with which the 
first chapter of the Remarks concludes, is a remarkable in- 
stance of extravagance and bad logic. We find in this expo- 
sition unsound principles and incorrect assertions. The wri- 
ter seems not to have taken pains, as was his bounden duty, 
to understand the book upon which he has commented. This 
is the more inexcusable, as he evinces no such want of capa- 
city as would have prevented him from comprehending the 
main points of so simple a work. Every attentive reader 
must be struck with his misrepresentation of the positions 
which he attacks. He represents Dr. Channing as charging 
the whole Southern population with degrading vice, whereas 
that gentleman does not enter at all into the consideration of 
the morals of any particular people, but confines his attention 
to the tendencies of Slavery, and to the corrupting influences 
which, in a greater or less degree, must always flow from it. 
And even supposing that Dr. C. had stated, what we all know 
to be true, that Slavery at the South had corrupted the public 
morals, how little foundation would such a statement afford 
for the sweeping application in the pamphlet, where we are 
told that "the charge is so general, that no one may consider 
himself exempted ; " that "it is not made against the obscure, 
the low, the ignorant, the vulgar ; but attaches to whatever 
in that country is deemed to be noble, elegant, refined, dig- 
nified, or accomplished," &c. ; or for that indignant exclama- 
tion, in favor of the " educated, chivalrous, and high-minded " 
Slave-holders, the punctuation of which hints to the reader 
twice to admire, — " Their wives and daughters by their own 
impurity satiate the Slave's revenge, for the ignominy which, 
in the common course of events, taints his domestic joys ! ! " 
We have but an indefinite conception of the meaning of this 
passage ; but we feel confident that, in so far as it means any 
thing, it means what Dr. C. has neither written nor implied. 

Our pamphleteer is, in a degree, right in his anticipation of 
the probable effect of the work which gives occasion to his 



22 

Remarks. It will undoubtedly irritate ; as Avhat fearless ex- 
amination of the subject of Slavery would not? Most men 
have at heart the honor of their country, and it is, to say the 
least, exceedingly disagreeable, if not offensive, to hear impu- 
tations of vice brought, even by implication, against that por- 
tion of it in which we live. Besides, in the nature of things, 
there must be some at the South who will think themselves 
abused and insulted, by any assertion of the rights of the 
Avretched beings whom they have the misfortune to hold as 
property ; and there are probably some, upon whose conduct 
we could bring no severer criticism than is implied in an ex- 
position of the duties of man to his fellows. There are those 
who think that we are bound on this account to refrain from 
discussing the question of Slavery. Many more, and it is 
trusted the great majority of New England freemen, think 
otherwise. It is time the question should be settled. Am I 
to close my lips upon the subject of Slavery, from fear of the 
irritable temper of the Slave-holders? Am I to be told — Be- 
ware of oflending these gentlemen ; you know their quick and 
resentful character; you know how exceedingly sensitive they 
are upop this point ; you know with what distrust they al- 
ready regard us of the North ; they will be very angry at any 
reflections upon their character and institutions ; they will 
answer you with threats of violence and of rebellion ; do not 
dare to say a word in behalf of the Slave : there is nothing 
the master will resent so quickly ; breathe not an imputation 
upon their morals : nothing comes more home to them than 
this ? Am I to be told this ; and am I therefore to be silent ; am 
I therefore to cease from my enquiries into this great subject 
of national concern ? No ! If the gentlemen are irritated, 
we are sorry for it. But we cannot help it. Let each take 
heed that he speak no word of which an honest man can com- 
plain. Here is a question of unspeakable interest to our peo- 
ple ; a question of policy, of humanity, of morals, of religion. 
It should be fully understood, and felt in its truth, by all. To 
this end, discussion must be free and fearless. And it will be so. 
The cries of selfishness will no longer scare it away. 

It is to be observed, that, in this first chapter, no position of 
Dr. Channing's is attacked, nor argument answered. The 



23 

writer wanders into general considerations and discursive 
reasonings, upon the impracticability of doing away Slavery, 
and the danger of discussing it. But what has he showti ? 
Has he demonstrated, or in any way made evident, iha truth 
of the proposition, which was to form the subject of the 
chapter, ramely, that Public Sentiment in the free States in 
relation to Slavery is perfectly sound, and ought not to be 
altered? Has he established any definite position ? No. His 
remarks, indeed, inacurate and loose as they are, may have 
some force, more or less, according to the reader's peculiar 
habits of mind. But tlie subject has not yet been grasped. 

We now proceed to the second chapter, entitled " Power 
over Slavery," in which the author comments upon the 
remaining tenets of what he calls "our doctrine," endeavours 
to show their soundness, where it is necessary, cind examines 
the work of Dr. Channing in reference to them. 

We do not read far, before finding flagrant misrepresentations 
of his author. 

" The means proposed are moral influences. To have any effect, they must 
find their way into the mind and heart of the Slave-holder. That which we call 
abolition, the Slave-holders consider a request to give up, waste, anniliilate, what 
they estimate to be worth about live hundred millions of dollars." 

"The moral influence, which is to work this stupendous miracle in their hearts, 
is first to commence by persuading them, that they are guilty of atrocious crime, 
&c. Stc." 

It is not SO. Dr. C. does not accuse the Slave-holders of atro- 
cious crime. He takes pains, although the reader may perhaps 
think the precaution unnecessary, to guard against being so 
understood. He maintains indeed, that the Slave suffers an 
unspeakable wrong, in being held as property, but he, at the 
same time, states, as a principle, that the guilt of the Slave- 
holder, if he be guilty, is not in proportion to the wrong 
suffered by the Slave, but to the violence done to conscience. 
" The wrong is the same to the Slave," he writes, " from what- 
ever motive or spirit it may be inflicted. But this motive or 
spirit determines Vv' holly the character of him who inflicts it. 
Because a great injury is done to another, it does not follow 
that he who does it, is a depraved man." " Slavery is an evil, 
not through any singular corruption in the Slave-holder, but 



24 

from its own nature, and in spite of all efforts to make it good." 
So prominent does he make his views on this point, that to 
falsify them is inexcusable ; for they cannot be mistaken, 
without wilful blindness. 

We object very much to the spirit of the next paragraph to 
the one we have quoted. But we leave it to the judgment of 
the reader. A little farther on, we read: 

" An Unitarian clergyman goes on a desperate enterprise, when he attempts to 
awe men or frighten them into a compliance with his will. He may deride, if he 
pleases, the arrogance of the Slave-holder, and describe it as the consequence of 
power habitually maintained over one or two hundred dependents ; but what will 
the Slave-holder say, in return, of that temper of mind which ventures to intimi- 
date five millions of freemen, by menace, denunciation, and indignity ? " 

This passage is to be utterly condemned. Who, that has 
read Dr. Channing's work, does not feel that the imputations 
here made are entirely groundless ? You find there no menace, 
no denunciation, and, we think, no indignity. The author 
arrogates no power, but that of truth and right. He makes 
use of no means, but those of persuasion. He fully states his 
own views, without fear, or shuffling, and leaves them to 
have such effect as they justly may. He does not presume to 
judge men, of any class.' Much less does he threaten any. 
He appeals not to men's superstitious fears. Dr. Channing, 
recluse though he be, knows full well the folly of endeavouring 
to ''intimidate " the Southern gentlemen into accordance with 
his views ; and would be as sensible as any to the quixotic 
character of such an enterprise. He does not attempt it. 
His work is calm, full, energetic, and as inoffensive as it could 
be, in being true. 

" If indeed," say the Remarks, '•' we mean to fight the 
Slaves free, it is of no moment how angry we make their 
masters ; " but if our object be to persuade the Slave-holders, 
we should be careful not to irritate them. We reply : Our 
object is or ought to be, not by any means to fight the Slaves 
free, nor to induce any violent measures, on a subject exacting 
so much calmness and honesty, nor absolutely to persuade 
Slave-holders, but to persuade in so far only as persuasion can 
be effected by a manly, charitable exposition of truth. No 
honorable man can wish that we should lie, for the sake of 
soothing the feelings of our brethren of the Carolinas. And 



25 

what is it better than falsehood, to represent Slavery other 
than as a dreadful wrong, and its effects upon public morals 
and public principle, other than as exceedingly lamentable. 
It must be felt that we have something higher to do, than to 
assuage the irritation of Southern pride, that, in the discussion 
of this momentous question, — momentous to all men, to all 
nations, to all ages, and formidably so to ourselves and our 
posterity, — it is quite a secondary consideration, whether 
those, whose interests are concerned in the decision of it, are 
angry at what we say, or not. Needless irritation should by 
no means be caused. In the present excited state of public 
feeling, every man is bound to endeavour to smooth down, 
as he best may, consistently with other duties, the asperities 
of passion ; to use, as much as possible, a calming and soften- 
ing influence upon the community. But it cannot be expect- 
ed that all irritation will be avoided ; for the wrong and the 
evils of Slavery must be thoroughly understood and felt by 
our people, and in the discussion of these, — even in the most 
mild and prudent discussion of them, — facts must be re- 
ferred to, and truths must be told, the statement of which 
some will choose to regard as injury or insult. The spirit of 
inquiry is daily increasing. It will not be repressed by vio- 
lent threats. Slavery must be viewed in its true light. 

The Remarks proceed to the consideration of the third 
tenet of the " Doctrine " of the Free States. 

" 3. It is a breach of our highest political contract, and a violation of good faith 
and common honesty, to disturb the internal condition and domestic arrangements 
of the Slave-holding States." 

" I assume this position to be self-evident." 

We repeat, what we have before said, that literary criticism 
is not our office. So, without questioning the propriety of 
the epithet "highest," or asking how "common honesty" 
differs from honesty, or expressing a doubt whether a " posi- 
tion " can be said in any way to be "evident," or whether 
this proposition be of a nature to be termed "self-evident," 
we allow what the gentleman takes for granted, interpreting 
it, however, according to our views, not according to his. 

" The first open question is, does this book and its doctrines interfere with the 
internal condition and domestic arrangement of the Slave-holding States ? " 

4 



26 

" First, I say, they are intended to do it. Slavery is established by law ; and 
the object of this publication is to abolish it. If, in the opinion of our author, his 
book will not, and cannot disturb the existing relations of Slavery, it was a work 
of gratuitous folly to pubhsh it." 

We here see how the writer construes the proposition, which 
he has affirmed, and in this sense, far from being evident, it is 
false. According to this interpretation, every thing written 
on the subject of Slavery, in which the right of holding man 
as property is denied, or the policy of abolition advocated, or 
the laws of the Slave-holding States criticised, or cruelty on 
the part of Slave-holders censured, is affirmed to be a viola- 
tion of the Constitution, and of good faith and honesty ; nay, 
in truth, every moral or philosophical work, every publication 
which tends to spread in society a knowledge of the natural 
rights of man, must be subject to the same charge ; for, it can- 
not be denied, that with the progress of intelligence and mo- 
rality, the security of Slavery is growing daily less, and that 
an extension of the knowledge of truth and right among the 
people, particularly among the Slaves, tends '^ to disturb the 
internal condition and domestic arrangements of the Slave- 
holding States." Slavery cannot stand before advancing civ- 
ilization. Every thing, of gain to the public mind, is hostile 
to it; and it is true, that Dr. Channing's book, among others, 
is of this character. But the assertion, that it therefore vio- 
lates the Constitution, (for this we understand the writer to 
mean by "our highest political contract,") and good faith 
and common honesty, is quite unfounded. It does not stand 
to reason. 

It is surprising to find from what insufficient premises, is 
drawn the declaration which we hear, not unfrequently, that 
Slavery is guaranteed by the Constitution. The word Slave 
does not stain the recorded Constitution of the United States ; 
and the subject is referred to only twice ; — once, in the sec- 
ond section of the first article, where it is provided, that 
" Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among 
the several States, which may be included within this Union, 
according to their respective numbers, which shall be de- 
termined by adding to the whole number of free persons, in- 
cluding those bound to service for a term of years, and exclud- 
ing Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other persons," and 



27 

again, in the second section of the fourth article, where we 
find — "No person held to service or labor in one State, under 
the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall in consequence 
of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such 
service or labor ; but shall be delivered up, on claim of the 
party to whom such service or labor may be due." How fool- 
ish an extravagance, to charge Dr. Channing with having vio- 
lated either of these sections, by what he has written ! If 
the publication of his book is not in violation of either of these 
sections, it is not in violation of the Constitution ; it is not in 
violation of "our highest political contract." 

The Constitution does indeed recogniss Slavery as estab- 
lished by law, and it is admitted on all hands, that the Free 
Slates would break their obligations by attempting to disturb 
the domestic arrangements of their Southern confederates ; 
but, it is not admitted, that it is either illegal, or faithless, or 
in any way bad, to discuss freely and without reserve, the 
policy, or the humanity of any of our institutions, or the 
equity of any of our laws. 

The North is under no other political compact with the 
South, than that of the Constitution. We violate it only when 
we act illegally. No sane man will maintain that Dr. Chan- 
ning has done so in the publication of his work. 

As to our moral obligation, it is but tautology to say, that 
this is only the obligation of conscience. We are morally 
bound to conduct ourselves towards our Southern brethren, 
not only with good intention, but with good judgment, in so 
far as reason is subject to will. Show that the consequences 
of Dr. C.'s public expression of his opinions are evidently in- 
jurious and he stands liable to your censure, — for his bad feel- 
ing, if he foresaw those consequences, — for his folly, if he did 
not. We regard Dr. C. as a public benefactor. 

We have said that it is by no means to be admitted, that our 
compact with the South is such, that any thing which tends, in 
the remotest manner, to disturb the existing relations of Slavery 
is wrong. Carry out this principle, and you forbid the publi- 
cation of the Declaration of Independence, of the Massachusetts 
Bill of Rights, of the first chapter of Genesis ; nay, of every 
improved spelling-book or primer, and of every magazine for 



28 

the diffusion of useful knowledge ; for whatever diffuses 
information, strikes a blow at Slavery. Our political obliga- 
tions are defined by the Constitution. We must not protect 
runaways, and we must permit the Slave population to be 
represented in Congress. For the rest, we are under no other 
obligation than that which binds us to act aright, with regard 
to every other object of public concern. The freedom of the 
press remains to us unabridged. We must firmly assert and 
maintain our rights in this respect. 

Supposing it to be true, that the work, upon which the 
Remarks have been made, is of a character to make those 
Slaves who read or hear it more uneasy in their bondage ; is 
it therefore to be condemned? It would be so, indeed, if there 
were means of addressing the white portion of our population, 
without at the same time being heard by the black. But there 
are no such means. What is printed therefore on this subject^ 
must, always, so long as Slavery lasts, be- perilous. Men, to 
be secured in bondage, must be held in ignorance — a heavier 
chain than any their bodies can bear. To hold them in this 
intellectual bondage will be daily growing a more and more 
difficult task. Rights understood and maintained by the^'rest 
of the community, will at last begin to be understood by the 
Slaves, and an imperfect understanding of them will be likely 
to lead to impolitic and barbarous violence. But does this 
tendency of things make it our duty to fetter our minds from 
all free action, and so seal our lips, that we may not utter a 
word of complaint, that our fellow man is made the degraded 
instrument of another's gain or pleasure ? No. The time has 
come when it is for the highest interest of our people, as well 
as of humanity, that this matter should be publicly discussed; 
not that hot-headed, brainless men may be encouraged in their 
declamation and pseudo-philanthropy, but that the minds of 
our citizens may be cleared of those mists, which cloud their 
understanding of some most vital truths, and be brought to 
that prudent foresight, and firm energy of purpose, and power 
of will, which will ensure their final deliverance from the 
great national pest. 

The pamphlet tells us that Dr. Channing "disavows the 
conclusions directly, plainly, irresistibly deduced from his 



29 

own positions, and appears to be oppressed with the horror, 
which no human being can escape from, who looks with 
steadiness and constancy on the immense moral evil, which, 
in the character of a Christian moralist, his doctrine is bring- 
ing on the country." 

Our office, again let it be remembered, is not that of a lit- 
erary censor. We ask, therefore, no question about the 
immense moral evil which comes to us " in the character of a 
Christian moralist," but proceed to discover what is this plain, 
direct, irresistible deduction from the Doctor's premises. " I 
charge him," continues our author, " in spite of his disclaimer, 
with the doctrine of insurrection. He inculcates the right of 
insurrection on the whole Slave population of the United 
States ; " and we are next told, that this is not only a fair 
deduction from the argument, but the only proper deduction, 
— not only that, by all the rules of sound reasoning, insi#rec- 
tion is the end and aim of his book, but that all rational men, ay, 
even the stupidest Slave, must understand it to be so. Observe 
the generality, the full extent of this assertion. Every man 
in the possession of reason, as well as the stupidest Slave, 
must understand Dr. Channing to inculcate the right of in- 
surrection on the whole slave population of the United States! 
Therearemen, understanding him differently, who would fain 
not be ranked among the irrationals. 

" The whole doctrine of his book," says the pamphleteer, 
"is that man under no possible circumstances can be rightfully 
made a Slave." We do not understand how a whole doctrine 
differs from a doctrine. Such is undoubtedly the doctrine of 
the book. And if it be, as the writer so forcibly asserts, the 
plain direct, and irresistible deduction from this, that all 
Slaves have a right to rebel, why does he not show the falsity 
of the premises, which lead necessarily to the conclusion 
which so revolts him ? Nay, why does he class those premises, 
in the first part of his book, among the long-established truisms 
which nobody denies? Here we might expect from the 
author, some clear statement of the grounds of his argument, 
some consideration of the main matter, some attempt to 
controvert the position upon which the work, which forms the 
subject of his remarks, rests. But nothing like this. The 



30 

great, all-important question, whether man can be rightfully 
owned, he leaves without any definite answer. He does not 
enter into a consideration of its merits. The reader remains 
in doubt as to his opinions on that point. His expressions 
are contradictory. On one page, that is said to be an undenied 
truism, which on another is declared to be the plain and 
irresistible proof of a dangerous falsity. How can a man 
presume to write on a subject of such vital importance, with 
a mind so entirely undecided on its chief point ? Such shuf- 
fling compositions insult the public. They gratify the author's 
vanity at the expense of truth and honesty. They should be 
frowned upon. 

The writer does not succeed in his attempt to show that his 
author preaches insurrection. Dr. Channing does not maintain 
that " acts of legislation, which have for their object to hold men 
in SHvery, are already made void by a power superior to all 
human constitutions and governments;" bnt that they are 
declared unjust and oppressive by that superior power. Like 
other unjust laws they are to be obeyed, so long as we are 
subject to that government which enacted and executes 
them. All good men, however, should use their influence to 
change them. Every voice should be raised against unholy 
and oppressive legislation, not with clamor, but in the tones 
of dignified and urgent expostulation. Still we are subject to 
government and must obey government, until revolution 
breaks our bonds. 

The writer of the Remarks draws a parallel between the 
condition and the rights of Slaves, upon the supposition of 
their being unjustly held in servitude, and the condition and 
rights of white men in like manner unjustly enslaved. We 
cannot understand Avhether he means to say that it is permis- 
sible to hold blacks in servitude, while to enslave whites is in 
the highest degree wrong, or that the rights of the two races 
are equal in this respect. If the former, why does he not 
point out to us what there is, in or about the negro, whether 
his complexion, or his present condition, or his character, 
which makes slavery to him no wrong. If the latter, then he 
it is that " inculcates the right of rebellion," he is himself "the 
preacher of insurrection." For he writes : 



31 

" Could we doubt a moment about this, if the law of Carolina should propose to 
detain every white traveller passing through its territory, and turn him out on a 
plantation as a slave ? In sucli case, the law would be no more invalid iind unjust 
than Dr. C. represents the laws about negro Slaves. But is there a heart in New 
England that would not beat high with sympathy for the abused white man .' Is 
there an arm that would not reach him a dagger if it could .' Is there a tribunal on 
earth, or any law of Heaven that would not excuse, — excuse did I say ? — that 
would not command him to watch for his opportunity, and make himself free .■"' 

Here we all feel with the writer. We should be unspeaka- 
bly indignant, if one of our fellow-citizens were enslaved in a 
foreign country, because those who had him in their power 
expected to profit by his labor, and should hold him blameless 
in attempting to deliver himself from bondage by any means 
which afforded reasonable prospect of success. Now it cannot 
be admitted for a moment, that the rights of the African in 
like circumstances, would be at all less than those of the New 
Englander. And here it is necessary to be explicit. There 
is danger of being misunderstood, and any misunderstanding 
on this point would work mischief. Still the public welfare 
demands that the truth should be told. 

Our slaves are oppressed, wronged men. Their right of 
self-defence remains undiminished. Like all other men under 
the weight of despotic power, they have a right to rise in 
rebellion against their oppressors, whenever they can better 
themselves thereby, whenever they have power to effect a 
revolution in government, and the chance of benefits to 
result from such a revolution outbalances its certain evils. 
The Slaves in the United States, however, have not power to 
revolutionize government. They cannot free themselves by 
force. In their situation, rebellion is utter madness. It can 
but increase their woes. Such superiority have their masters 
in numbers, in knowledge, in power, in situation, that insur- 
rection on their part can but produce misery, alarm, and closer 
bondage. Their right then of self-vindication by arms 
ceases. No people, however oppressed, can rightfully rebel, 
when rebellion would afford them no relief. Such is the 
plain state of the case. The oppressor's safety lies always in 
his might. The Slave's condition is at present hopeless. He 
must wait to be helped to freedom by the humane and influ- 
ential. 



32 

Dr. Channing inculcates the right of insurrection in so far 
as the right of insurrection is an inherent right of man. Un- 
doubtedly Dr. Channing does not hold it to be on account of 
our complexion, or any physical trait, that we have liberty to 
use those means, which God and reason have put into our 
hands, to defend ourselves in the enjoyment of those goods, 
which God has bestowed. The right of self-defence is uni- 
versal. To African, American, and European, it is alike 
given, and every where it is subject to limitation. Fortunately 
for the master, the slave in our country cannot defend himself. 
Let the philanthropist compassionate him in his feebleness, 
and endeavour to gradually prepare the way for his liberation. 
And may God help him ! 

Our Saviour did not forbid Slavery in so many words. He 
did not attempt to restore the bond to liberty; for the minds 
oi men were not then prepared for so great a change. He 
gave his religion to the world, to work the subversion of all 
wrong. The spirit of that religion has wrought many revolu- 
tions in the opinions and institutions of men, while yet but in 
the beginning of its operations. It will effect many more. 
By the light which it has thrown upon the character, the 
rights, the destiny of man, it has now prepared society for the 
removal of this greatest outrage upon that character and those 
rights, the degrading of our fellow to the condition of servile 
instrument of another. Slavery is now indignantly frowned 
upon by the civilized world. It is regarded as the great blot 
on our national institutions; and the apathy, which is sup- 
posed to exist among us with regard to it, as a dark stain on our 
national character. It cannot stand. It must fall. Society will 
not go back. Its course is ever onward. That Slavery should 
sustain itself in our country for a century, before the reason 
and refinement and humanity, which are pressing upon it with 
a daily increasing host, would be a miracle in the history of 
man. Our children's prospect will be less gloomy than ours. 

The author of the Remarks now bids fair to come to a con- 
sideration of the main points of the work which he reviews. 

" The argument of Dr. C," he says,'" is as unsound in its logic, as it is refined, 
extravagant, and dangerous in its morality, and horrible in its consequences." 



33 

" His fallacy is one very common to enthusiasts. He assumes a proposition to 
be universally true, which is true only with important qualifications and many 
limitations." 

" His conclusion is based on the premises, that no property can be made to exist 
in a human being." 

By no means. Dr. Ohanning's premise is, that " man can- 
not be justly held and used as property." This correction 
made, the gentleman's argument comes to nothing. The 
force of his Remarks, for several pages, depends wholly on a 
misrepresentation of his author's views. He argues : man is 
in fact owned as property, and therefore property can be made 
to exist in a hnraan being. This conclusion is correct, but 
has nothing to do with the question. "Who is fool enough to 
dispute that Slaves can be and are owned by planters at the 
South ? — But does it therefore follow that they are justly 
owned ? — What a miserable expedient, when reasons fail and 
wit is exhausted, to falsify arguments which ought to be fairly 
met ! 

" This is but partially true even in Massachusetts," continue the Remarks. " We 
admit a limited property in human beings. A father has a property in his child ; 
a master in his apprentice ; a ship- captain in his mariners; a general in his sol- 
diers. Their labor belongs to him, and their services, like those of the slave, may 
he enforced by stripes." 

And if it be so, what follows ? Suppose Slavery were com- 
pletely, as well as partially, established in our State^ does it 
follow that Slavery is just, that man can be rightfully held as 
property? — But it is not so. The parent does not own the 
child. The ship-captain does not own his sailors. The 
tradesman does not own the apprentice. We understand by 
property, something held, not for its own good, but for the 
good of its owner, — something transferable, — something 
that may be bought and sold. The child is not held as prop- 
erty by its father, but restrained for its own good, on account 
of its helplessness. The mariner and the apprentice do not 
owe service to their respective employers, on account of a 
right of property claimed by them, but by contract, made for 
mutual benefit. Their submission is for a definite term, at 
the expiration of which, their right to their own labor, which 
they had partially resigned, returns to them. 



m 



34 

That there is such a thing as legal Slavery, every one will 
admit. From the fact, the writer of the pamphlet attempts 
to prove the right ; and uses these extraordinary words, 

" Propei'ty is the creature of municipal law. It exists nowhere without law ; 
and every where, is inherent in every thing which is made property by law." 

This is by no means correct. Property is not the creature 
of municipal law, but precedes it ; and to protect men in the 
enjoyment of property is one of the chief reasons for the estab- 
lishment of law. Were there but two individuals on the 
earth, and they should meet for the first time, the one would 
feel that he had exclusive right to the fish which he had 
caught, to the animal which he had killed, to the fruit which 
he had plucked, to the utensil which he had made, — and would 
defend himself in the enjoyment of these, against the encroach- 
ments of the other. All men feel thus. And it is upon this 
universal sentiment, that the right of property is founded. By 
nature, we own what our strength and our wit have procured 
for us. Municipal law protects us in the enjoyment of that 
which is by nature ours. 

The proposition, then, that "property is the creature of mu- 
nicipal law," does not stand, and with the failure of this 
premise, falls the whole train of remark by which our dispu- 
tant thinks to strengthen his position. 

" Where is the authority," he asks, " for the declaration, that there can be no 
property in a human being ? In the Bible ? Slavery is recognised under the 
Mosaic and Christian dispensation, without censure. In History ? Slavery has 
existed, in all time, in the fairest regions of the earth, and among the most civilized 
portions of mankind." 

So has despotism. Despotism has been the calamity of the 
fairest countries and the most civilized people. It is not ex- 
pressly censured in the New Testament. Yet it is wrong. — 
Correct the question, and the answer is easy. Where is the 
authority for the declaration, that "man cannot he justli/ held 
and used as property ? " We answer : Not " in a refined and 
elaborate metaphysical subtilty," — not in history, — not in 
any chapter and verse of the Bible, — but in the Christian 
spirit, and in every man's own heart, in yours Mr. Pamphleteer, 
in yours reader, in mine, in the Slaveholder's, in the Slave's, 
We all feel that Slavery is essentially a grievous wrong, that 



35 

man cannot be justly owned, that he has a right to his own 
hmbs, to the employment of his own time, to the enjoyment of 
domestic life. Our authority is nature, and reason, and the 
spirit of revealed truth. And the civilized world almost unani- 
mously testify for us. 

What remains of this chapter is cant ; and does not bear 
upon the question. In so far as it tends to any thing, it tends 
to illustrate the position, that property is a creature of law ; 
and whatever illustrates, must weaken, this position. The 
writer wishes to show, that the question of Slavery is solely a 
legal question. It is not so. The plain truth of the matter is 
this. Whether man is or is not held as property, is a question 
of fact. Whether man can or cannot be so held, is a question 
of law. Whether man ought to be so held, is a question of 
right. It is this last which Dr. Channing discusses ; and, 
strange to say, his reviewer opposes to him legislative and 
judicial authorities. There is a Law, which Courts affect not 
to decide, and which they cannot change. To this all men 
must bov7. the legislator and the judge, the governor and the 
subject. Reason and conscience are its interpreters. God 
is its constitutor. According to this law human legislation 
should be squared. When once it is understood, man should 
not hesitate to obey. It is the law of right. This is the law 
which Slavery violates. 

The author of the Remarks, however, acknowledges no 
higher law than that of human enactment. " This idea of 
going beyond and behind the law, he says, to find a rule for 
human action in civil society, is getting to be somewhat alarm- 
ing." Now what is this intended to mean? It is true, that 
the law of the land is, in the sphere of its operation, supreme. 
Whatever philosophy inculcates, or excuses infraction of it, 
is extremely dangerous. Let our tribunals be despised, and 
our government is not worth preserving. Still the man, who 
has no higher rule of action than the law of the land, is a 
degraded being. He is unv/orthy of the privileges he enjoys. 
Obedience to the public authorities forms but a small branch 
of our duty. A very large part of our actions are such as do 
not come at all under their cognizance. If we would be 
worthy, then, we must go farther than the law, and apply to 



36 

our actions, stricter principles, than courts apply for us. We 
must also go above, as well as beyond, the law ; for we, it 
must be remembered, we the people, are, by means of our 
representatives, the framers of laws ; we supply their deficien- 
cies ; we correct them when they are unjust ; we, for whose 
good they are made, are to see that they answer that end. It 
is evident, then, that, as legislators, we must find some higher 
rule of action than our own statutes. The citizen is not at 
liberty to maintain that an existing law is made void by supe- 
rior authority ; but he is at liberty to express freely and fully 
his opinions as to the justice of that law, and, if he believe it 
unjust, to use all his influence to have it changed. — There is 
a tendency, always prevalent, but particularly so in our busi- 
ness times, more dangerous than that to which the gentleman 
has referred, — a tendency to slight Reason and Conscience. 
We are deaf to the admonitions of our better spirits. We forget 
our responsibilities, as citizens, as legislators, and as brothers, 
to God, to the spiritual world. Legal right is getting to be 
the only right generally recognised. Honor no longer tempers 
selfishness. Chivalry, that noble, but imperfect, form of truth 
and manliness, is fallen before more complete views of man's 
relations, and with it have gone many of the charities, many 
of the humanities of life. Those strict principles of religion, 
which our forefathers brought with them over the ocean, are 
disappearing with the narrow doctrines, with which they were 
associated. All the influences, which have heretofore redeemed 
us and made us what we are, have failed of their wonted 
power. Times of skepticism, of coarseness, of prose, seem to 
be coming upon us. Oh, let us do what we may, to avert 
them ! Let Religion take her sceptre, and Justice sit at her 
right hand ! 

The necessity of making virtue our highest law, is allowed 
by all unbiased men. The author of the Remarks himself 
maintains, in his next chapter, (as what man can deny ?) that 
we have higher duties than those of mere obedience to public 
law. Here then we stand on common ground. Right is 
supreme. The first question then is : is Slavery right ? This 
question, the pamphlet we review does not discuss. 



37 

The third chapter, entitled, " Right of Discussion," needs 
little comment. It is no longer a question, whether Slavery 
shall be discussed. The discussion has commenced, and it is 
evident that it will continue. It remains to be seen, — it 
remains to be decided, whether that discussion shall be tem- 
perate and wise. If it be so, the result will be knowledge of 
the truth, and right action. If, on the contrary, passion and 
prejudice and selfishness rule, error and disorder will follow. 
Let influential men strive to direct public sentiment aright. 
Let them remind the citizens frequently of their duty to think 
and speak rnd act conscientiously, and of the great calamities 
resulting to a people from want of moral principle. Let us be 
true to ourselves, and light will break in upon us. 

There are some expressions, in this chapter, which need to 
be examined before we leave it. We read : " Whatever is 
clearly and palpably inexpedient, ceases for the time to be 
morally right." The words "clearly and palpably," add noth- 
ing to the meaning of this sentence. Either inexpedience 
renders an action not morally right, which would otherwise 
be so, or it does not. If it does, — then whatever appears to 
us, on the whole, inexpedient, whether clearly or obscurely so, 
is to us not morally right. For the rest, without expressing any 
doubts as to the soundness of utilitarian ethics, suffice it to say, 
that in order that this principle should be other than very 
unsafe to act upon, the expediency or inexpedience of our 
actions should be judged, by their effect, not upon the interests 
of a small number and for a limited time, but upon all men, 
and through all ages. Each man must regard himself as a 
citizen of the world, and as having an influence upon the fate 
of an unlimited posterity. 

In this connexion, there is a phrase to be noticed, as telling 
more of the writer's meaning, than appears at first sight. He 
speaks of " the commands of honor, of conscience and of 
duty." It is not uncommon to read " the dictates of honor 
and conscience ; " and this expression is not perhaps to be 
found fault with ; for although strictly it is pleonastic, 
although what is right is always honorable, and the truly 
honorable always right, yet actions are viewed in different 
lights, according as they are regarded as the gentleman's, or 



38 

as the Christian's. The same apology is not to be made for 
lh' phrase which we have quoted from our pamphlet. " The 
commands of conscience and of duty " are in every respect the 
same ; or rather, the commands of conscience are duty. The 
expression therefore is bad. But it is not as a rhetorical error 
that we notice it. As such it is not remarkable in the pages 
before us. We regard it as an indication of wrong ideas of 
duty ; and we are supported in our construction by parallel 
passages. One of the chapters is intitled " Moral Duties," 
as if all duties were not moral ; and society is spoken of as 
to be supported not by moral principle, but by " moral and 
prudential principle." Now these expressions, and many like, 
tell us that the author has fallen into the error, not infre- 
quent among men who boast themselves practical, of regard- 
ing duty as of two kinds, one of conscience, the other of 
interest, — of regarding man as bound by two obligations, 
of right and of expediency. Now this is an error, and a bad 
one. Conscience has no divided empire. We must hold 
ourselves in subjection to it, not partially and with certain 
reserved rights, but fully and constantly. True it may be, 
that the right is always the expedient, even in its immediate 
results. True it certainly is, that, in the long run, right is 
policy. But whether it be so or not, whether interest do or 
do not seem, to our short-sighted vision, to coincide with 
virtue, still to conscience, if we would be men, must we refer 
every action and every word. It is a shame that this great 
truism is not kept in view. 

This, it is answered, is verbiage ; it has no practical bearing 
upon the matter in hand. But no, it is not verbiage. These 
words are full of meaning. What we have said is wholly 
practical. It aims to make clearer the truth, that our first 
question with regard to Slavery is, not whether the white 
portion of our population will gain or lose by a continuance of 
the poor negro's bondage, — but whether Slavery be or be not 
right. And if it be decided that Slavery is an infraction of 
man's Rights, vested in him by the Almighty, of inherent, 
inviolable Rights, — if it be decided that Slavery is essentially 
unjust, — then ask not whether it shall^ but how it can be 
done away. A necessary injustice would be an anomaly in 
the world. 



39 

In the fourth chapter, we come to a consideration of the 
second main proposition, that " public sentiment in the Slave- 
holding States cannot be altered." 

'• This arises from a very melancholy consideration, but one which should be 
deeply considered. 

" Domestic Slavery is, in the United States, so intimately connected with civil 
society, that it can never be removed but by one of those tremendous convulsions 
in which nations perish." 

To the proof of this last, the author devotes many pages. 
He calls our attention in a striking manner to the immense 
difficulty of the task which the Abolitionist proposes to himself. 
He shows that Slavery is connected by numberless ramifica- 
tions with the interests of the South, and makes evident that, 
in the opinion of the Slave-holders, the relinquishment of their 
slaves would be an immense pecuniary sacrifice. From con- 
siderations of this nature, he comes to the conclusion that 
" Domestic Slavery is the perpetual and immovable condition 
of our national existence." The question, why it should be 
so, he thus answers. — 

" Possibly as a balance in the operations of Heaven, for the unparalleled bless- 
ings of our extensive and prosperous republic ; possibly as a trial for those virtues, 
which need calamity as well as happiness ; possibly as the mode by which our 
nation, like the mouldering empires of the elder world, shall come to its termina- 
tion ; possibly for some mysterious reasons yet to be developed in the wisdom of 
Providence ; possibly for some cause, like the minor evils of life, never to be made 
manifest to human reason." 

It is gratifying, in discussions of policy, to find reference to 
our relations with the Author and Ruler of the universe, the 
most important and the most afiecting of all in which we 
stand. We cannot however agree with the spirit of this 
paragraph. Viewing Slavery merely as a political evil, we 
might believe that it was to us, for some reasons not fully to 
be understood, a national dispensation ; but it is inconsistent 
with true ideas of God's Justice and Benevolence, to suppose 
that a wrong done to one class of men, is instituted by him to 
discipline the virtues, or humble the pride, of another. It can- 
not be that God makes injustice a means of his government 
It cannot be, that he constituted millions of creatures with 
aspirations after freedom, imbued them with a strong sense 
of their right to this freedom, gave them faculties which 
could find development, a soul which could find true life, 



40 

only in freedom ; and then, giving the lie to his own work, 
degraded them into a bondage, where the heart is blighted, 
the intellect fettered, conscience perverted, — in order that the 
calamities resulting from this disorder of nature might be 
dispensations of his Providence to another portion of his 
creatures. 

The task of removing Slavery is indeed of immense diffi- 
culty. Let our country bring to the work commensurate 
forces. It is not impracticable to a great and good nation. 
The accomplishment of it will not be despaired of, by those 
who have faith in the wonderful efficiency of man, when in- 
spired by moral principle with all the energy of resolute man- 
hood. There is cowardice in despair. 

Towards the close of this chapter, the writer shows us the 
true ground of much of the opposition which is met with at 
the North by those who attempt to make the public appreciate 
the calamity under which they lie. Some of our people, we 
hope not many, are unwilling that Slavery should be in any 
way interfered with, lest their commercial interests should 
suffer, lest they should have to pay more, than they now do, 
for the produce of Slave labor, or be vmable to obtain it at all. 
Such men boast themselves practical, and as a triumphant 
response to all argument in favor of the Slave's rights, bring 
forward tables of prices current of Southern produce and 
Northern manufacture, and estimates in dollars and cents of 
the value of the aggregate black limbs in the country. Dr. 
Channing addresses such a one, — ' Brother, here are two or 
three millions of our fellow men inexpressibly wronged, de- 
barred from those enjoyments and means of improvement to 
which God destined them, claimed as property by those who 
have no right to a hair of their heads, and unable to defend 
themselves from oppression. Let us all use our influence to 
do away this injustice. The evil is great. The cure, though 
necessarily slow, may be effected.' 'But, good sir, sweet sir,' 
says the practical man, 'what is to become of our rice, our 
sugar, and our cottons?' — 'Perhaps they will be less abund- 
ant. It may be that Slavery adds to our riches ; but this is 
no reason for continuing oppression. By raising your voice 
in favor of the wronged, you may make yourself poorer : the 



41 

commendation of your conscience will repay you.' — ' But my 
sugar, my rice, my cottons! ' — 'I am trying to convince you, 
friend, that these ought to be held trifles in a cause of virtue. 
You must do your duty as the first thing ; and whatever en- 
joyments are inconsistent with this, you must be willing to 
relinquish.' — ' All this is very true,' rejoins the matter-of-fact 
man; 'but it is not practical. You are a theorist, a closet- 
mind; you know nothing of realities. You are dealing with 
clouds. Duty ! why, my good Doctor, expediency is duty. 
Utility is my standard ; and according to this standard, sugar, 
and rice, and cotton are no trifles.' 

To such spirits we do not address ourselves. We will not 
descend to the grovelling task of convincing selfishness of its 
narrowness, and showing that what we recommend as right, 
recommends itself as gain. To do so would compromit the 
dignity of a moral cause. 

There is a paragraph in the introduction to the chapter upon 
which we have been remarking, which we cannot forbear to 
quote, as it leads to considerations which we have desired to 
enter upon. The gentleman says : — 

" I speak (o pi-ac(icnl, experienced business men, who know, by actual contact, 
the force of human motives and the rage of human passion, and not to theoretical 
and secluded scholars, who would give lessons in their study for the measure of a 
whirlwind. I speak to the bold and vent-urous navigator on the great ocean of life, 
who has heard the i-oar of the elements and felt the strain of the cordage; and 
not to the little pilot of a pleasure-boat, who never ventures beyond the ripple of 
a summer's breeze." 

The last of these sentences is a very fine one. Strike out 
the second epithet in the first clause, and it is faultless. The 
words are well put together, and the images are striking and 
illustrative. Where it stands, it is mere rhetorical embellish- 
ment ; it strengthens no position ; it throws light upon no part 
of the subject. It leads, however, to reflections which are 
useful in this place. 

Who are practical men? — As this phrase is generally re- 
ceived, — those who are acquainted with the exceptions, and 
ignorant of the rules, of human nature. We will make our 
meaning plainer. 

6 



42 

It is a common remark, tliat human nature is the same, all 
the world over. It appears under different forms, in different 
lights, and variously veiled. Still it is essentially the same. 
Its great laws are of universal application. — The practical 
man, — he who takes a busy part in active life, whose daily 
employments carry him into contact with the multitude, — 
sees mankind only in certain of these forms, and under cer- 
tain of these lights. He wishes to influence men, to bend 
them to his purposes ; and to effect this object, he studies the 
peculiarities of the individuals, or famihes, or classes, with 
whom he has to deal. Upon this study depends his success. 
He therefore makes it his great employment. His whole life is 
spent in discovering by v/hat motive this or that person is 
most ruled, how the favor of this or that circle may be ob- 
tained ; and his occupations are of such a character, that his 
experience of man, which he so much values, is confined to a 
comparatively narrow circle where his interests centre. Human 
nature is to him the character of the inhabitants of the village, 
city, state, where he has lived ; and he knows not that the 
peculiarities of his kinsman are not essential attributes of the 
human kind. Such a life does not make the man truly wise. 
It begets indeed a certain shrewdness which receives great 
credit in the world, and qualifies one to be a safe counsellor 
with regard to measures of limited and temporary operation; 
but its tendency is to narrow the mind, and to blind it to man 
as man. The power of generalizing is lost or weakened. The 
attention long confined to the peculiarities, the littlenesses of 
individuals, is unable to grasp the great truths, the great in- 
terests, the great motives, the great ends of humanity. 

If it be true that there are certain universal truths, and cer- 
tain universal laws of our kind, they are to be discovered, not 
by the bustling, but by the meditative. He is best fitted to 
discern, to understand, and to feel them, who having had 
intercourse with his fellows in some of the ordinary occupations 
of life, and having seen them under the influence of various 
governments, institutions, and climates, retires to reflect on 
what he has seen, mingling only enough withsociety, tokeephis 
recollections and his sympathies fresh, and, through the medium 
of history, viewing men in masses, and observing the changes 



43 

which time, place, and circumstance work upon character. 
He carries always with him the subject of his examination, in 
his own breast. All the essentials of man's nature are there 
to be found. Free from the trammels of petty particular cares, 
he takes generous and impartial views of the race. Instead of 
going forth in the morning to speculate in lands, cloths, or stocks, 
endeavouring to anticipate the changes which are to take place 
in the state of the market, — or betaking himself to the halls of 
legislation to learn the art of detaching men from one party, 
to tie them to another, — or bending his whole mind to con- 
vincing a jury, and himself if necessary, of the justice of a 
client's cause, — instead of going into the world and having 
to deal with single and partial forms of humanity, — he sits in 
his study, and looks widely over the face of society, past and 
present, and acquaints himself with its generalities, with its 
substance, with the constantly observed laws of its motions. 
He rises in contemplation; the horison which formerly limited 
his vision widens ; he sees man in all his vast relations, of 
creature, brother, embryo angel ; and from his elevation he 
casts a ray of light upon our otherwise benighted path. Such 
men are the truly wise. These are the men who solve the 
riddle and unravel the mystery of human life. They are a 
people's safest guides. National prosperity is progress along a 
narrow and difficult road, and in our journey, we cannot trust, 
for safe conduct, fellow farers, who mingle in the crowd, and 
are carried along with it, but must look to those who stand 
aloof, in advance of the multitude, and see their way. 

(And in fact, the quiet, retired, contemplative minds are the 
most influential though the least credited of all. By changing 
society itself, they in the end change all which society has 
established. They prepare the way for all the great move- 
ments. Bustling, practical men are their instruments. The 
deep tones which come from their retreats are the commands 
of genius. Their influence is the stronger, and the surer, for 
being not immediately sensible. They do not change laws, 
increase crops, nor regulate commerce, but addressing them- 
selves to individual minds, they correct errors of judgment, and 
awaken new aspirations and new principles of action. Public 
Sentiment, — in contradiction to which, in a free country like 
our own, institutions cannot long stand, — receives its tone 



44 

from men, who are not felt jn the world, except by the elo- 
quence they litter and the truths they tell.) 

There :v.e then certain great principles, a knowledge which 
is essential to practical wisdom, which are with difficulty 
understood by him who is called emphatically a practical 
man, by one whose attention is absorbed by transient interests 
and limited operations. These principles, though universal, 
are not universally recognised. He therefore who proposes 
considerations founded upon them, often meets with unwel- 
come reception, and is answered that what he propounds is 
very good theory, but no rule o.' j ractice. The answ. is 
absurd. What is theory ? It is a system of laws deduced 
from observation of what has taken place. It is good, it is true 
only so far as it conforms with facts. It is a rule for practice, 
or it is nothing. Whatever is proposed to your consideration, 
is either true, theoretically and practically, or false, theoretically 
and practically. It is either good philosophy and good fact, or 
it is bad philosophy and bad fact. " Truth is one." It is 
the part then, not of a wise, but of a foolish person, to 
answer to a proposition, that it is good theory, but not prac- 
tical. This is merely a way of escape from the recognition 
of truths, which you ought frankly to acknowledge or fairly 
to disprove. By admitting it to be good theory, you admit 
that it ought to be your rule of practice ; and by refusing to 
make it so, you only exercise your right of acting as a fool, 
while you judge as a sage. 

And now apply what has been said, to the matter in hand. 
The proposition, that Slavery is a great wrong, and that a na- 
tion never prospers by wrong, are either true or false. Call 
them theory or fact, prose or poetry, or Avhat you will, the 
question still recurs : Are they true or not ? Tell us not that 
they are the speculations of closet-minds. No matter who 
found them. Are they true ? Talk not of the difference be- 
tween abstract and matter-of-fact reasoners, and of the vague- 
ness of these propositions. Apply what epithet you choose 
to them. But are they true ? Yes, good friends, they are 
true. And if true, not only are they practical ; but the fate 
of our country depends upon their being blazed abroad. Sla- 
very is a great wrong to the slave, and as such, not merely as 
an evil to ourselves, it must be done away. Were this object 



45 

to be attained only by sinking the half of our fair territory in 
the Atlantic, still the national interest would demand that the 
sacriuce should be made. 

Retired men, we have said, are the best able to dit^cover 
and to enforce the great truths whicli concern man. But with 
regard to particular applications, they need the advice of those 
who have made particulars their study. Dr. Channing woidd 
be an indifferent legislator. Such men know only the great 
ends of national existence, and the great rules of action, and 
are unable to judge of the expediency of measures, the effect 
of which depends upon circumstances, peculiar to the occa- 
sion, which the general thinker cannot well Aveigh. 

He cannot, for the same reason, be expected always to time 
his observations well, or to assume, on all occasions, the most 
effectual tone of persuasion. We think, however, that in the 
publication of this work, he has judged well in these respects. 
We wanted just such a book. We needed to be strongly 
reminded of our duties to the Slave. Dr. Channing discusses 
the question as a question of right, not of interest. And this 
is Avell. There is more sense of justice in our community 
than our so called practical men give credit for. 

It is true, as our author remarks, that " he is a poor teache'r, 
who, in estimating the operation of motives and the causes of 
action, takes mankind as he would have them, and not as they 
are." — It is true that conscience has not her rightful dominion, 
and that those who go upon the supposition that men will never 
knowingly do wrong, will be Avofully disappointed. Yet we 
believe, that the sense of right can, in no way, be thrown 
from the high place it holds in the minds of a people, and 
that, by an appeal to it on questions of duty, the heart is 
stirred much more powerfully, than by oblique and subtle 
addresses to selfishness. W^e call our people a moral people. 
We trust it is so, in a fuller sense than that which the phrase 
generally receives. Show our citizens the course of duty, 
and they will, in the end, pursue it. 

Dr. Channing's work is not to be reproached, as not prac- 
tical. It is practical in the highest degree. The subject of 
Slavery is so treated as to be brought home to every mind. 
His course is plain and direct ; his style simple, unpretending. 
There is no mixture of any sort of pedantry. It is not at all 



46 

in place, to say, with the author of the Remarks, that " he 
argues out his positions with all the learning of the schools." 
Dr. Chanuing is not a learned man. He does not affect learn- 
ing in his writings. He has lived the life of a thinker, not of 
a reader. His conclusions are those of a man, not of a scholar. 
True, he is, in the author's sarcastic words, " a mere talking 
clergyman." But in our days, the pulpit is, by no means, a 
bar to influence ; and a " mere talking clergyman," so he 
have a great soul to prompt his tongue, and have filled it, by 
observing and meditation, with all wisdom and charities, is 
an efficient practical man. With us, speech is action , and 
though our logocratic sins are many, yet for that the more, is 
well-spoken truth welcome and powerful. 

The author concludes that '' all hope of exterminating 
Slavery," — we use his words, — "is desperate by any other 
means than civil war ; " and leaves us to infer that, since 
Slavery is, intimately as he has represented, bound up with 
the interests, domestic condition, and character, of the South, 
— "Public Sentiment, there, cannot be changed." — We 
notice, in passing, a want of logic in this implied inference. 
The impracticability of removing Slavery, makes out the in- 
expedience of attempting, not the impossibility of effecting, a 
change in Public Sentiment. At any rate, one who differs 
with the author in the premises, will come to a different con- 
clusion. — Southern feeling, not only can be changed, but is 
daily changing. What signifies it to tell us, that " the Slave 
region has pronounced its decision," and that " within its 
borders Slavery shall not be discussed " ? State decisions 
cannot shut out the spirit of civilization. Let books be 
printed, or suppressed ; let men be hung and flayed, or hon- 
ored, for speaking the truth : still we are freemen ; we are 
thinking men ; no part of our people will turn a deaf ear to 
reason and right. 

The fifth chapter of the Remarks is a more particular 
consideration of " the modes of abolishing Slavery." The 
manner, in which this subject is treated, is quite unsatis- 
factory. There breathes through it, a cavilling, a petty, spirit, 
which does no credit to the author, whoever he be ; and mis- 
representations of the opinions which he opposes, are so 



47 

frequent and gross, that the reader cannot refrain from believ- 
ing them, in part at least, intentional, — since, as the work is 
anonymous, there is nothing to forbid that unfavorable con- 
struction. 

The loss, which would accrue to the Slave-holders from 
abolition, is much exaggerated by our writer. After giving 
estimates of the aggregate value of our Slaves, ranging from 
two hundred and fifty, to eight hundred, milHons, — he says: 
" Before Slavery can cease in the United States, this vast 
property must be annihilated." — This, we submit, is quite an 
incorrect statement of the case. If the Slaves were liberated, 
they would, from their very situation, be obliged to work for 
reasonable wages. The only difference would be, that the 
planter would then pay, for willing labor, a sum of money ; 
whereas he now pays, for forced labor, clothes, food, and 
shelter. — This, however, is not to our main point. 

However the question of the apparent practicability of 
abolishing Slavery may be decided, our duties remain, in 
great degree, the same. Whether there can, or cannot, be 
now pointed out any way of removing this evil, — still we 
must call up all our intelligence, all our sagacity, all our 
humanity and disinterestedness, in order to discover the path, 
if it be not yet found. From the very nature of the case, the 
impossibility of effecting our purpose cannot be shown ; and 
our hopes receive so much .confirmation from general con- 
siderations, — of the benignity of God, — and of the immense 
efficiency of man, when acting from great motives, — that we 
should be authorized, nay, commanded, — to summon all our 
resources for the attempt, even if not a ray of light had come 
to us from the dark cloud. To remove Slavery is not im- 
possible. There is no excuse, then, for remissness or delay. 

We must begin then from this point. Slavery is ivrong. 
The Slave is an oppressed man. He must be freed. We are 
not to believe the impossibility of giving him freedom, till it 
shall have been proved by actual experiment. It has not 
been so proved. Far from it. The impracticability of plans 
already proposed, has by no means been made evident. — We 
have, it is true, a great work before us. But, let it be re- 
membered, there is a great nation to effect it. The extent of 
the evil, the tenacity, with which Slave-holders cling to their 



48 

property, and the other considerations which have ^een ad- 
vanced, go to prove, not that it is impracticable, but that it must 
be gradual and dilficult, — gradual, because so great, — diffi- 
cult, because tiie soul which animates men, is so different 
from what it should be. Our success is not only probable, — ■ 
it is sure, — did there but breathe through our community, 
the spirit of Christians, — the spirit of men, — the spirit of 
true chivalry, a semblance of which is so often worn as a veil. 
No prudent man expects or wishes immediate abolition. 
The slave cannot yet be liberated with safety. He must still 
be restrained. " He cannot, rightfully, and should not, be 
owned by the individual. But, like every other citizen, he 
belongs to the community." — Our author protests that he 
does " not understand this nice distinction." He is ''sure 
the slave would not comprehend it." He does " not perceive 
how the slave can cease to be property and yet belong to the 
community." How flimsy is this! — You, Mr Pamphleteer, 
we presume, are not a slave : yet you belong to the community, 
by the profession of your title-page. You are subject to the 
restraints of law. If, in the opinion of our courts, the good 
of the community shall require you to be confined, (which, if 
you continue to publish " Remarks on Slavery," the public 
weal, in our estimation, will ere long demand) — you will be 
incarcerated. Yet you would not, we trust, in preparing an- 
other edition of your pamphlet from your cell, entitle it, "lie- 
marks, &c. By a Slave of Massachusetts." 

Our humble work is finished. We have raked over this 
heap of bad arguments and offensive allusions, and picked 
out such parts as the public health required to be exposed. 
To ourselves, the task has been anything but agreeable. To 
point out the fallacy of palpable sophistry, is not a sufficiently 
active employment, to be interesting; and there are works 
with which one is reluctant, in any way, to meddle. Our 
object has not been to counsel the citizens ; but only to attract 
the attention of careless readers to the weak points of the 
book we have reviev/ed, and by some considerations of the 
main subject, to cancel the injurious effects which might fol- 
low from a popular, and to a degree powerful and attractive, 
defence of pernicious errors. 



54 W 








♦ AT "^ • 













j.'i-^ c o " " * ^ 

















"°*^^'/ \-^^\/ %'^^-/ * 

§i^'. •**. ../ ^^/i' u .^* y^i^'- V..** .*rf&/- 











r %. 










A^"^ 

;* ^ % 






















^^0^ 











^"-^^^ 










• *o 




.^'% 










o M e 








■*i-<* 



&^"-^ 



